Fixing a time delay between wto Freeview boxes

Try 40,000km. Reduce it by 5,000km increments until it's right. It's OK to coil it up. Signal losses will be about 8,000dB if you use CT100 so you might need some compensating amplification.

Bill

Hmmm.. any chance of a quote on the job, I'll just use bog standard cable if it's cheaper :O) I would expect a bulk buyers discount though :O|

And I want proper connectors too, not some twisted wires bodged job.

Do you get good reception under your bridge?

--
Alex

Piece by piece the penguins have taken my sanity
www.drzoidberg.co.uk www.ebayfaq.co.uk

Come now. The man asked an honest question and got an honest answer.

Bill

As you've realised, its not something that us poor mortals can achieve. You may be amused that DAB listeners have complained for sometime about the "time pips", which sound like a peel of bells as every DAB radio in the house goes off at a slightly different time, and all of them well behind any analogue radios. Of course digital radio off Freeview or Satellite goes off at a different time too!

Of course DAB is of such high quality that surely people won't care about the fact that you can't listen around the house without all this bizarre "echo" affects, he said with his tongue firmly in his cheek!

Paul DS

|I have a freeview box and a freeview dongle (for my PC), |however they take different times to process the signals so |they are out of sync, this is most noticible on the sound when you |listen to both at the same time. | |Is there anyway of fixing this time delay so they are in sync? | |I was think a good idea would be to make the cable to the faster box |longer so the signal had to go futher, dunno how much cable I would need |though, the delay is only about 1/5 of a second. I have some spare cable but |I don't |know what lenght to cut it too :O)

I have seen a similar thing done, a long time ago, by a *commercial*

*professional* outfit, called IIRC Wigwam, in a long thin auditorium where there were several TV monitors a long way from platform, and they introduces a time delay for each ?video? stream to give lip sync with both the natural speed of sound time delay and the audio out of the speakers.

Writing the above made me realise that I do not understand what they did, but it worked very well.

Introducing time delays in audio and/or video streams is definitely possible, and might now be down to a reasonable price now.

--
Dave Fawthrop  Google Groups is IME the *worst*
method of accessing usenet. GG subscribers would be well advised get a 
newsreader, say Agent, and a newsserver, say news.individual.net. These 
will allow them: to see only *new* posts, a killfile, and other goodies.

This won't be any help but.. did something like this many years ago. However the frequency was 70 MHz rather than baseband video. We used a couple of reels of cable, probably about 500m, and that gave sufficeint delay.

Could TV delay line technology be of use? A TV delay line has a delay of one line = 0.06 ms so you would only need about 8000 of them ..or perhaps bigger capacitors ;-)

Roger

I beg to differ. Concerned with the low WAF of 5,000 tonnes of cable under the carpet, I coiled it on your advice, I might add, into a tidy bundle some billionth of a millimetre across, which I figured would fit out of sight behind the bookcase, when lo & behold, it promptly collapsed in on itself.

Now I can't fit the last damned connector. Assuming you can suggest a suitable workaround to the termination issue, I'm still concerned the Hawking radiation will interfere with my reception. In your experience, is that likely to be a problem?

That's another thing - it doesn't seem to matter how strong a signal I feed into it, nothing comes back out. It appears your calculations are off somewhat. I have to say I'm not at all happy with your advice.

--
Michael
m r o z a t u k g a t e w a y d o t n e t

IMHO Signal travels through cable at about a foot per nanosecond.

So you can make up a delay line, but would it be practical?

Good Luck

Peter

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Warning: Do not use Ultimate-Anonymity
They are worthless spammers that are running a scam.

we used to consider that video co-ax had a velocity factor of 0.8. Resulting in: 3 x 10e8 x 0.8 m/sec or 2.4 x 10e8m/sec or 2.4 x 10e2m/usec

or 240m/usec or .24m/nsec. (nearer 9inches)

--
From KT24 - in "Leafy Surrey"

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.11

Not if you use Mathew Orman's special FTL data transmission cable (sci.physics posts passim). The last I heard, he was claiming transmission speeds of several millions of times c, knocking Einstein into a cocked hat. The deluded fool even had a go at selling the prototype on ebay, with a starting price of $100,000. Sadly, there were no bids.

but surely, to minimise the length of cable needed you need much slower transmission?

--
From KT24 - in "Leafy Surrey"

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.11

Sadly slow speed transmission does not seem to be an area addressed by Mr Orman's cutting edge research. Using one of his cables, you'd probably get to see the programme before it had even left the aerial.

More orthodox science may have the answer:

This would do it probably!!

To match video to sound that's traveled just 13 metres, you'd need to store a whole frame (at 25fps). Doesn't seem that it could have predated high-density RAM chips. Mercury delay lines wouldn't be up to the job.

--
Dave Farrance

They probably used likely some sort of magnetic media,

Bye. Jasen

Which is faster.